LEONCIA BALOGBOG AND GAUDIOSO BALOGBOG, PETITIONERS, VS.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMONITO BALOGBOG AND GENEROSO BALOGBOG, RESPONDENTS.

Balogbog versus Balogbog

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog against the Court of Appeals, Ramonito Balogbog, and Generoso Balogbog. The petitioners are the surviving children of the deceased spouses Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal. The private respondents claim to be the legitimate children of the petitioners' older brother Gavino, who died in 1935, and they sued for partition and accounting of the grandparents' estate. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of two rules every examinee must carry: that the old Civil Code of 1889 never took effect in the Philippines, and that marriage and legitimate filiation may be proved by testimonial evidence and by the presumption that a man and a woman living as husband and wife are lawfully married.

Procedural History

The action for partition and accounting was filed in 1968 before the Court of First Instance of Cebu City, Branch Nine. On June 15, 1973, the trial court rendered judgment for the private respondents. It ordered the petitioners to render an accounting from 1960 until the finality of judgment, to partition the estate, and to deliver to the private respondents one third of the estate of Basilio and Genoveva, plus attorney's fees and costs. The petitioners moved for a new trial or reconsideration, arguing that the trial court gave no weight to the certification of the municipal treasurer that no marriage of Gavino and Catalina appeared in the Book of Marriages for the years 1925 to 1935. That motion was denied, and so was a second motion grounded on the church records of the parish of Asturias. The petitioners appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Hence this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Basilio Balogbog and Genoveva Arnibal died intestate, in 1951 and 1961 respectively. They had three children: Gavino, Leoncia, and Gaudioso. Gavino died in 1935, predeceasing his parents. In 1968, Ramonito and Generoso Balogbog sued for partition and accounting, claiming to be the legitimate children of Gavino by Catalina Ubas, and therefore entitled to Gavino's one third share in their grandparents' estate. The petitioners answered that they did not know the private respondents, and that Gavino had died single and without issue at the family residence in Asturias, Cebu.

The private respondents built their case on testimony. Priscilo Trazo, a former mayor of Asturias, testified that he knew Gavino and Catalina as husband and wife and attended their wedding sometime in 1929, solemnized by Father Emiliano Jomao-as. Matias Pogoy testified that he attended the wedding in the Catholic Church of Asturias, that Gavino died in 1935 at Obogon, Balamban, Cebu, and that he himself made Gavino's coffin and the coffin of the couple's son Petronilo, who died at six. Catalina herself testified that she and Gavino lived together and had three children, Ramonito, Petronilo, and Generoso, and that the marriage certificate given her by the priest was burned during the war. Certificates showed no record of the marriage or of Ramonito's birth, the records being presumed lost or destroyed during the war.

Against this, Leoncia testified that Gavino died single and that she did not know the private respondents. A witness, Jose Narvasa, supported her, though on cross-examination he admitted that Leoncia was his bondsman in a criminal case. The trial court ruled for the private respondents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the legal presumptions of marriage, legitimacy, and the ordinary course of nature had not been overcome.

Issues

• Whether or not the marriage of Gavino and Catalina had to be proved in accordance with Articles 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889, as the law in force when the marriage was allegedly celebrated.
• Whether or not the legitimate filiation of the private respondents may be proved by testimonial evidence of continuous possession of the status of legitimate children, in the absence of a record of birth.

Applicable Provisions

Article 266 of the Civil Code provides:

In the absence of the titles indicated in the preceding article, the filiation shall be proved by the continuous possession of status of a legitimate child.

This is the provision that allows the private respondents to prove their filiation by possession of status rather than by a birth record.

Article 267 of the Civil Code provides:

In the absence of a record of birth, authentic document, final judgment or possession of status, legitimate filiation may be proved by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

This is the fallback rule that opens filiation to testimonial and other evidence when no record exists.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Articles 53 and 54 of the Civil Code of 1889 never came into force. Articles 42 to 107 of that Code were suspended by the Governor General shortly after the Code was extended to the Philippines, so the marriage had to be determined under the present Civil Code and the rules on evidence. Under those rules, a man and a woman conducting themselves as husband and wife are presumed legally married, and that presumption may be rebutted only by cogent proof. The absence of a marriage record does not prove that no marriage took place. Testimonial evidence that Gavino and Catalina were married in 1929, that their marriage subsisted until Gavino's death in 1935, and that their children were recognized by the family and the public was sufficient. The Court also held that an exchange of vows may be presumed from the testimony that a wedding took place, since the very purpose of a wedding is to exchange vows. It closed with the maxim: always presume marriage.

On the second issue, the Court held that while Article 265 requires a record of birth, an authentic document, or a final judgment to prove status, Articles 266 and 267 permit proof by continuous possession of status and by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court when those titles are absent. The municipal treasurer certified that the birth records for 1930 could not be found, presumably lost or destroyed during the war. Pogoy and Catalina testified to the children of Gavino and Catalina. And Gaudioso himself, in a police investigation in Balamban, Cebu, admitted that Ramonito was his nephew, the son of his elder brother. That declaration against interest was admissible against him, and his silence at trial only confirmed it.

Doctrine

First, Articles 42 to 107 of the Civil Code of 1889, including Articles 53 and 54 on proof of marriage, never took effect in the Philippines, having been suspended by the Governor General. Second, a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife are presumed lawfully married, and the presumption is rebutted only by cogent proof; the failure to present a marriage contract is not proof that no marriage took place, and other evidence, including testimony, may prove the marriage. Third, legitimate filiation may be proved by continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child under Article 266, and by any other means allowed by the Rules of Court under Article 267, when the record of birth is unavailable. Fourth, a declaration against interest made in another proceeding is admissible against the declarant.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in full, holding the private respondents entitled to one third of the estate of Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog.

Remember This

Memorize the line: always presume marriage, and the absence of a record is not proof that no marriage took place. Examiners use this case to test the presumption of marriage, proof of filiation under Articles 266 and 267 of the Civil Code, and the rule that the Civil Code of 1889 never took effect.